Translation In Action!
Categories of Blog Posts
All Friday Fun Fact Marvelous Monday Messy Media News You Can Use Tuesday Talk
All Friday Fun Fact Marvelous Monday Messy Media News You Can Use Tuesday Talk
7/8/2019 The Mystery of Big ButtsThis one should go without saying.This is an oldie but a goodie that has somehow stayed off of our TPMH radar until recently. There have been article floating around since 2007 saying that women who have bigger backsides are smarter.
It seems that the media has been playing the game telephone because a more recent article claimed that women with big backsides have smarter children. One even claimed that both women with big backsides and their children are smarter. Of course, both claims are false. Let’s dig into where the media went wrong. What the media says: This is the study that we first came across and it is the one that we will dissect below. According to this study, women with big backsides have more intelligent children. There isn’t much more to the media article than that. Interestingly, this article links to another article that debunks it! Talk about messy. Note other similar headlines here and here and here and here and here and here. Let’s dig deeper: What makes the most recent article stand out, as we said before, is its claim that children of women with big backsides are smarter. This article is very brief and succinct. It claims that a recent University of Oxford study found that women with big backsides have smarter children. They say that this is due to high amount of Omega-3 fatty acids that are in fat cells and which help promote the brain development of a fetus in utero. The article also goes off on a bit of a tangent and discusses that this same Omega-3 fatty acid also makes its way into breastmilk. This creates a nutritious diet for babies who breastfeed. It’s unclear from this article what makes the child smarter, though. Is it the omega-3 fatty acids absorbed by the growing fetus or drunk by the baby in breastmilk? What the science actually says: We were unable to find the original “Oxford” article because none of the media articles linked to it! We searched endlessly and could not find it. There were a few potentials, though. It could be this article, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one. Only one of these was done at Oxford. Take home point: None of these articles investigated anything remotely related to women, their backsides, their children, and intelligence. Why the media is messy: Unlike other Messy Media posts where it was possible to compare the media coverage to the scientific article, this Messy Media claim seems to be 100% fabricated. It is messy because it is a lie, not just an exaggeration of scientific claims. A few messy things to note, though:
Bottom line: Do not believe everything that you read. The size of women’s backsides have nothing to do with their intelligence or the intelligence of their children. Authors Jessica L. Bourdon, Ph.D. #tpmh #messymesia #sciencecommunication 12/4/2018 Beer vs. Wine - The Debate Continues!Join us for our latest Messy Media post with a twist - the scholarly article was also a bit messy...Media Headline: Craft beer is better for you than wine, according to experts. What the Media Says: This media article is very short and pits beer against wine in a fictitious competition for which is the healthiest beverage. It primarily references a literature review on the potential risks and benefits of beer, although the media article only references a few of the potential benefits. Specifically, it discusses that some of the vitamins and minerals in beer may have health benefits such as lowering cholesterol and reducing instances of heart disease and type 2 diabetes. The media article repeatedly states (either through quotes or its own statements) that beer is better than wine, even saying that many British citizens “wrongly believe that wine is healthier than beer.” It ends with an anecdote from a supermodel who uses beer to make her hair shinier. Scholarly Journal Article: McCullough, M. P., & Volpe, R. (2017). Can beer consumption be part of a healthy diet? Choices, 32(3), 1-7. What the Scholarly Journal Article Actually Says: As already mentioned, this scholarly article was a literature review of potential risks and benefits of consuming beer. It organized its findings in the following headings: “Alcohol and Health Impacts,” “The U.S. Dietary Guidelines: Total Consumption and the Frequency of Drinking,” and “Healthful Consumption.” This is notable because the headings along make it clear that the review discussed healthy drinking, proper education about what constitutes a drink and health risks, as well as policy implications of drinking while discussing beer specifically and its potential benefits. It was a balanced article, although it did not go into detail about the studies that it cited for the benefits of beer. As we have learned from other Messy Media blog posts, the compounds in alcohol may be singularly beneficial but it would take an unhealthy amount of an alcoholic beverage to reach the beneficial levels of the compound. For example, the review cites that Xanthohumol, a compound in the hops of beer, may inhibit cancer growth. However, the amount of Xanthohumol needed for this benefit is unclear and it appears that the referenced study only studied the compound individually, not as part of beer or another, larger concoction. Why the Media AND Literature Review Are Both Messy: The review is notable for its clear messaging on the risks of alcohol and statements about what constitutes a standard drink. However, even it falls short in discussing the potential benefits of beer and may be a big reason why the media article is so messy. Only once did the review put its discussion of the benefits of moderate beer drinking in the context of individuals reducing their consumption from a “binge” level to a “moderate” level. It would be easy for readers of the review to conclude that they need to add beer to their diet in order to be healthier. Still, the media article is messier.
What's the Bottom Line?No study to date has directly compared the health benefits of wine and beer. The literature review cited in the media article clearly lays out the risks and benefits of drinking beer which all consumers need to weigh for themselves based on their own health history. Authors.Media headline:What the media says:In a highly opinionated piece for Women’s Health, Maia Szalavitz argues for increased access to medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorders. She specifically advocates for buprenorphine and methadone, which function as replacements for opioids in the brain. The brain, she argues, having become opioid-dependent, will need opioids long-term, possibly forever, in order to function normally. Other forms of treatment, which she represents with the popular 28-day inpatient abstinence-based model and the 12 step programs, she describes as ineffective, even detrimental, especially for women, for whom she reports overdose rates from opioids are rising at a rate exceeding those of men. What the Surgeon General's report actually says:Key points from the report include the following.
Why the media is messy:
Overall, this article missed an opportunity to advocate for increased access to MAT without disparaging other valid paths to recovery. Bottom line:Evidence-based treatments and paths to recovery from opioid use disorders come in many forms. Szalavitz’ article in Women’s Health argues for one: MAT, to the exclusion, even derision, of all others. A closer look at the surgeon general’s report cited in her article reveals the bigger picture – that while greater access to MAT is needed, other options are equally as valid and important to the SUD continuum of care. AuthorsRachel Davies & Jessica L. Bourdon Media headline:What the media says:The article promotes several medical uses of ginkgo biloba with a focus on its increasingly popular weight loss application. It reports that specific chemicals present in the plant have been associated with weight loss or related phenomena (e.g., increased blood flow), but not ginkgo itself. The article further touts other health benefits of ginkgo, such as improved cognitive function and specifically memory. It is suggested that these secondary benefits of ginkgo may also lead to weight loss because it will help you better remember to track calories. What the literature actually says:No study has yet investigated the effects of ginkgo biloba on weight loss in humans. However, several groundwork studies have found evidence that ginkgo affects fat storage in poultry chickens and rats. These studies are not evidence of safety or ability of gingko to produce its desired effect (i.e., weight loss) in humans. In fact, these data call for further studies before recommendations can be made to the public in regard to weight loss. Additionally, specific guidelines for how much ginkgo one should take are offered. It must also be noted that clinical trials in humans found ginkgo to be ineffective in preventing dementia, which further calls into question the supplement’s overall use. You can find helpful links to studies here, here, and here. Why the media is messy:
Bottom line:Gingko is a popular supplement but there are limited studies of its effects in humans, especially in regard to weight loss. Individuals who want to lose weight should not take gingko but seek alter their behavior in other ways, such as consultation with a general practitioner or nutritionist about safe exercises and healthy eating habits. AuthorsRachel Davies, Pamela Noble, Rachel Flammia, & Jessica L. Bourdon Media headlines:What the media says:Each article does a fair job at summarizing the main findings of the original scientific study, however, they take rapidly different approaches and tones and are thus messy in opposite ways. Both explain that a study in the United Kingdom found that drinking enough alcohol to get your blood content up to .08% was associated with a decrease in pain (up to 25%) and increase in pain tolerance. Both also stress the dangerous implications of these findings, with the second article, noting that many readers may misinterpret the results as an excuse to drink more. The second article further accuses the study itself of inspiring individuals to potentially become addicted to alcohol. Journal title:What the article actually says:The actual report from the Journal of Pain provides a clear rationale for the meta analysis. The authors properly analyzed the results from all past studies that examined the relationship between alcohol and pain. This is a long and complicated process but was necessary because past studies found mixed evidence that alcohol is a pain reliever. For this current analysis, two measures of pain were used – pain threshold and pain intensity ratings. It was found that alcohol consumption was associated with a small increase in pain threshold and a moderate reduction in pain intensity ratings. These findings are important for understanding how alcohol use disorders develop – they are one piece of a big puzzle. For example, some individuals may drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol to dull physical pain. Why the media is messy:
Bottom line:The purpose of the current study was to better understand the relationship between alcohol and pain. Such information has implications for individuals with alcohol use disorders and the providers who treat them. AuthorsElizabeth C. Long & Jessica L. Bourdon Media headline:What the media says:This media article describes a scientific study which concluded that the more you drink, the more you tend to remember. Specifically, you are likely to remember things that you learned just prior to drinking. The theory behind it is that the hippocampus (the part of the brain that helps with memory) turns recollections of what you learned before drinking into long-term memories instead of short-term ones. Journal title:What the journal article actually says:A controlled experiment was conducted where participants were divided into groups who drank and those who did not. Memory tasks were completed by all participants before the experiment and the day after. The day after the experiment, those who drank exhibited improved memories of information that they were exposed to before drinking compared to no memory improvement in the sober group. There was also a positive correlation between performance and dose of alcohol consumed. It should be noted that before the experiment, both groups had equivalent memory and performance. This means that our brains may store memories into long-term storage when under the influence of alcohol. Why the media is messy:The Forbes article is extremely vague - it fails to recognize the situational details of the experiment and differing factors (e.g., years of education). Thus, the media article is misleading due to the lack of detail and emphasis on a catchy title. Although it is mentioned in both the media and journal articles that the cons of binge drinking outweigh the pros, the title of the Forbes article may serve as encouragement to others to drink heavily for a good memory if they do not fully understand the data presented. Although the body of the article is not necessarily incorrect with the findings, it lacks full transparency with circumstances that can allow proper memory formation. This further leads the audience towards the misconception that they should a) begin heavy drinking or b) that their heavy drinking is justified. Bottom line:According to this study and previous research, there may be a link between alcohol consumption and the performance of memory recollection for information learned prior to drinking alcohol. AuthorsVictoria Wood, Drake Terrell, & Jessica L. Bourdon 1/19/2018 Does Nutella Really Cause Cancer?Media Headlines:What the media says:Each article summarizes a recent study by the European Food Safety Authority which found that palm oil was associated with an aggressive spread of cancer in mice. Palm oil is an essential ingredient in Nutella that is responsible for its smooth texture and shelf life. However, only two articles acknowledge that due to the fact that no human studies have been done on the risks of palm oil (i.e., if it causes cancer in humans, what amounts are cancerous, etc.) means that the conclusions of the study are preliminary and more research is needed. Journal title:What the article actually says:The actual report from the European Food Safety Authority is 159 pages and is very technical. In sum, the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain investigated the risks for human health related to the presence of three compounds in palm oil: 3-MCPD, 2-MCPD, and glycidol. Researchers found the highest amounts of these substances in palm oil/fat. Smaller amounts were found in many other foods, such as margarine, potato crisps, pastries, and cookies. It was found that these compounds had negative effects in mice and rats, including: renal toxicity (short-term 3-MCPD exposure); benign tumors of the testes, mammary gland, and kidneys (long-term 3-MCPD exposure); neurotoxicity (short-term glycidol exposure); tumor production in multiple organs in all rodents and anti-fertility in males (long-term glycidol exposure). No conclusions could be made about the effects of 2-MCPD. Ultimately, the Panel concludes that, at certain doses, 3-MCPD and glycidol indicate a health concern. However, more data is needed and more extensive testing of dose-response is needed. This study makes no mention of Nutella. Why the media is messy:
Bottom line:It is not as simple as “Nutella causes cancer.” In mice and rats, tumor production was observed at certain doses, but we do not know how these findings generalize to humans. More research is needed to definitively know the extent to which, and at what doses, Nutella poses a health risk in humans. AuthorsElizabeth C. Long & Jessica L. Bourdon 12/27/2017 Is it Really Okay Not to Floss?Media headline:What the media says:Due to the fact that brushing and flossing daily have been recommended for years by the American Dental Association (ADA), it was assumed that there was sufficient evidence to back up the claims. Instead, it recently became clear that flossing specifically may not be as necessary as previously thought due to a lack of clinical trials (controlled experiments). A current review found very unreliable evidence that flossing actually reduces plaque or gingivitis (gum inflammation) in the short term. However, a dentistry expert is also quoted as saying that gingivitis can eventually lead to periodontitis (bone loss) after several years, so flossing likely is not doing any harm. Journal title:What the article actually says:A systematic review was performed, which is where researchers search every relevant internet database thoroughly for articles related to the topic in question. In this study. In this study, the researchers looked for all articles that included experiments on the benefits of flossing and brushing combined. They found 12 articles that had done controlled experiments on the benefits of flossing and brushing. After combining the data from all 12 articles, they found that flossing plus brushing, compared to brushing alone, significantly reduced gingivitis at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Specifically, the longer the participants brushed and flossed, the better the effect. At the same time points, the amount of plaque reduced was so small that the researchers could not conclude that flossing and brushing together reduced plaque. Why the media is messy:
Bottom line:There is some evidence that flossing and brushing together reduces gingivitis and that this benefit increases with time. However, there is not enough evidence to conclude that flossing and brushing together reduced plaque. More research is needed over a longer period of time to definitely know the benefits of flossing. AuthorsElizabeth C. Long & Jessica L. Bourdon Media headline: What the media says: Reservatol is a compound found in red wine that has been shown to have positive impacts on health. Specifically, in rats it can increase physical performance, heart function, and muscle strength in similar ways as a workout. Journal title: What the article actually says: Ten-week old rats were randomly divided into four groups: (A) No exercise and standard diet (B) No exercise and diet supplemented with reservatol (C) Exercise and standard diet (D) Exercise and diet supplemented with reservatol. Exercise consisted of running on a treadmill for 60 minutes, 5 days a week, for 12 weeks. There were three main findings: (1) It was found that endurance increased in the rats who exercised compared to those who did not (i.e.,) groups C and D did better than groups A and B. (2) Among the two groups of rats who exercised, those who received reservatol had a 20% increase in performance and a noticeable increase in muscle strength (i.e., group D did better than group C). (3) When comparing the rats who exercised and ate a standard diet to those who did not exercise and ate reservatol, the rats who exercised outperformed sedentary rats (i.e., group C did better than group B). Why the media is messy: The article makes no mention of wine and other sources show that one glass of wine contains far less reservatol than the rats received in the study. The only human implications in the article suggest possible improved glucose performance and insulin sensitivity from a lifestyle of moderate exercised accompanied by reservatol. Bottom line: Red wine cannot take the place of regular exercise. Reservatol, a compound found in wine, can improve exercise outcomes, but it’s unclear how much a human would have to consume to see positive changes. AuthorsElizabeth C. Long & Jessica L. Bourdon |